Re: Programmer's criticism of GTK2

[Carlos Pereira <carlos pehoe civil ist utl pt>]

<flame>

> How simple do you want it? Gtk isn't exactly hard to get into; if you find
> the interface difficult I would suggest you're not fit to write software.

This is the most brain dead statement I have seen for a long time.

The guy to whom you replied this perl, is using Gtk for at least 2 years,
and often has helped in this list. He is not exactly a newbie trying to
compile helloworld.c

At page 293 of Expert C Programming, written by Sun kernel hacker
Peter van der Linden, you can read this citation:
"C++ will do for C what Algol-68 did for Algol" - David L. Jones

and then the footnote explains:
"Algol-68 was a monster-sized language that built on the small and
successful Algol-60. It was hard to understand (it had a formal 
specification written in denotational semantics), hard to implement,
and hard to use. But it was 'very powerful' or so everyone said. Algol-68
effectively kiled Algol-60 by replacing it, before self-destructing in 
a wave of impracticality. Some people see parallels between the two Algols 
and the two C's."

I am sure there was people then saying as you:
"How simple do you want it? Algol-68 isn't exactly hard to get into; 
if you find the language difficult I would suggest you're not fit 
to write software."

</flame>

I certainly wish all the best to Gtk, and I certainly thank all the
great hackers who did their best for Gtk during the last 3 years, 
I am still planning to use Gtk2.0 despite the huge increase in libraries,
size and complexity, but we must stay focused: simplicity is
good, complexity is bad.

Carlos